The Journal of Family Practice

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) carries a high disease burden. In 2012, it was the 4th leading cause of death worldwide.^1,2 In 2015, the World Health Organization updated its Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, classifying patients with COPD based on disease burden as determined by symptoms, airflow obstruction, and exacerbation history.³ These revisions, coupled with expanded therapeutic options within established classes of medications and new combination drugs to treat COPD (TABLE 1),^3-6 have led to questions about interclass differences and the best treatment regimen for particular patients.

Comparisons of various agents within a therapeutic class and their impact on lung function and rate of exacerbations address many of these concerns. In the text and tables that follow, we present the latest evidence highlighting differences in dosing, safety, and efficacy. We also include the updated GOLD classifications, evidence of efficacy for pulmonary rehabilitation, and practical implications of these findings for the optimal management of patients with COPD.

But first, a word about terminology.

Understanding COPD

COPD is a chronic lung disease characterized by progressive airflow limitation, usually measured by spirometry (TABLE 2),³ and chronic airway inflammation. Emphysema and chronic bronchitis are often used synonymously with COPD. In fact, there are important differences.

Individuals with chronic bronchitis do not necessarily have the airflow limitations found in those with COPD. And patients with COPD develop pathologic lung changes beyond the alveolar damage characteristic of emphysema, including airway fibrosis and inflammation, luminal plugging, and loss of elastic recoil.³

The medications included in this review aim to reduce both the morbidity and mortality associated with COPD. These drugs can also help relieve the symptoms of patients with chronic bronchitis and emphysema, but have limited effect on patient mortality.

Short- and long-acting beta₂-agonists

Bronchodilator therapy with beta₂-agonists improves forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) through relaxation of airway smooth muscle. Beta₂-agonists have proven to be safe and effective when used as needed or scheduled for patients with COPD.⁷

Inhaled short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABAs) improve FEV₁ and symptoms within 10 minutes, with effects lasting up to 4 to 6 hours; long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) have a variable onset, with effects lasting 12 to 24 hours.⁸ Inhaled levalbuterol, the last SABA to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval, has not proven to be superior to conventional bronchodilators in ambulatory patients with stable COPD.³ In clinical trials, however, the slightly longer half-life of the nebulized formulation of levalbuterol was found to reduce both the frequency of administration and the overall cost of therapy in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of COPD.^9,10

Recently approved LABAs

Clinical trials have studied the safety and efficacy of newer agents vs older LABAs in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Compared with theophylline, for example, formoterol 12 mcg inhaled every 12 hours for a 12-month period provided a clinically significant increase of >120 ml in FEV₁ (P=.026).¹¹ Higher doses of formoterol did not provide any additional improvement.

In a trial comparing indacaterol and tiotropium, an inhaled anticholinergic, both treatment groups had a clinically significant increase in FEV₁, but patients receiving indacaterol achieved an additional increase of 40 to 50 mL at 12 weeks.¹²

Exacerbation rates for all LABAs range from 22% to 44%.^5,12,13 In a study of patients receiving formoterol 12 mcg compared with 15-mcg and 25-mcg doses of arformoterol, those taking formoterol had a lower exacerbation rate than those on either strength of arformoterol (22% vs 32% and 31%, respectively).¹⁰ In various studies, doses greater than the FDA-approved regimens for indacaterol, arformoterol, and olodaterol did not result in a significant improvement in either FEV₁ or exacerbation rates compared with placebo.^5,12,14

Exacerbation rates for all long-acting beta₂-agonists range from 22% to 44%.

Studies that assessed the use of rescue medication as well as exacerbation rates in patients taking LABAs reported reductions in the use of the rescue drugs ranging from 0.46 to 1.32 actuations per day, but the findings had limited clinical relevance.^5,13 With the exception of indacaterol and olodaterol—both of which may be preferable because of their once-daily dosing regimen—no significant differences in safety and efficacy among LABAs have been found.^5,12,13

Long-acting inhaled anticholinergics

Inhaled anticholinergic agents (IACs) can be used in place of, or in conjunction with, LABAs to provide bronchodilation for up to 24 hours.³ The introduction of long-acting IACs dosed once or twice daily has the potential to improve medication adherence over traditional short-acting ipratropium, which requires multiple daily doses for symptom control. Over 4 years, tiotropium has been shown to increase time to first exacerbation by approximately 4 months. It did not, however, significantly reduce the number of exacerbations compared with placebo.¹⁵

Long-term use of tiotropium appears to have the potential to preserve lung function. In one trial, it slowed the rate of decline in FEV₁ by 5 mL per year, but this finding lacked clinical significance.¹³ In clinical trials of patients with moderate to severe COPD, however, once-daily tiotropium and umeclidinium provided clinically significant improvements in FEV₁ (>120 mL; P<.01), regardless of the dose administered.^6,16 In another trial, patients taking aclidinium 200 mcg or 400 mcg every 12 hours did not achieve a clinically significant improvement in FEV₁ compared with placebo.¹⁷

In patients with moderate to severe COPD, the combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol, a LABA, administered once daily resulted in a clinically significant improvement in FEV₁ (167 mL; P<.001) vs placebo—but was not significantly better than treatment with either agent alone.¹⁸

Long-acting inhaled anticholinergic agents—when used in combination with LABAS—have a positive effect on FEV₁, but their effect on exacerbation rates has not been established.

Few studies have evaluated time to exacerbation in patients receiving aclidinium or umeclidinium. In comparison to salmeterol, tiotropium reduced the time to first exacerbation by 42 days at one year (hazard ratio=0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.9; P<.001).¹⁹ The evidence suggests that when used in combination with LABAs, long-acting IACs have a positive impact on FEV₁, but their effect on exacerbation rates has not been established.

Combination therapy with steroids and LABAs

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and LABAs has been found to improve FEV₁ and symptoms in patients with moderate to severe COPD more than monotherapy with either drug class.^20,21 In fact, ICS alone have not been proven to slow the progression of the disease or to lower mortality rates in patients with COPD.²²

Fluticasone/salmeterol demonstrated a 25% reduction in exacerbation rates compared with placebo (P<.0001), a greater reduction than that of either drug alone.²⁰ A retrospective observational study comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol with budesonide/formoterol reported a similar reduction in exacerbation rates, but the number of patients requiring the addition of an IAC was 16% lower in the latter group.²³

The combination of fluticasone/vilanterol has the potential to improve adherence, given that it is dosed once daily, unlike other COPD combination drugs. Its clinical efficacy is comparable to that of fluticasone/salmeterol after 12 weeks of therapy, with similar improvements in FEV₁,²⁴ but fluticasone/vilanterol is associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.³

Chronic use of oral corticosteroids

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are clinically indicated in individuals whose symptoms continue despite optimal therapy with inhaled agents that have demonstrated efficacy. Such patients are often referred to as “steroid dependent.”

While OCS are prescribed for both their anti-inflammatory activity and their ability to slow the progression of COPD,^25,26 no well-designed studies have investigated their benefits for this patient population. One study concluded that patients who were slowly withdrawn from their OCS regimen had no more frequent exacerbations than those who maintained chronic usage. The withdrawal group did, however, lose weight.²⁷

GOLD guidelines do not recommend OCS for chronic management of COPD due to the risk of toxicity.³ The well-established adverse effects of chronic OCS include hyperglycemia, hypertension, osteoporosis, and myopathy.^28,29 A study of muscle function in 21 COPD patients receiving corticosteroids revealed decreases in quadriceps muscle strength and pulmonary function.³⁰ Daily use of OCS will likely result in additional therapies to control drug-induced conditions, as well—another antihypertensive secondary to fluid retention caused by chronic use of OCS in patients with high blood pressure, for example, or additional medication to control elevated blood glucose levels in patients with diabetes.

Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors

In one study, patients slowly withdrawn from oral corticosteroids had no more frequent exacerbations than those who maintained chronic usage.

The recommendation for roflumilast in patients with GOLD Class 2 to 4 symptoms remains unchanged since the introduction of this agent as a treatment option for COPD.³ Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as roflumilast reduce inflammation in the lungs and have no activity as a bronchodilator.^31,32

Roflumilast has been shown to improve FEV₁ in patients concurrently receiving a long-acting bronchodilator and to reduce exacerbations in steroid-dependent patients, a recent systematic review of 29 PDE-4 trials found.³³ Patients taking roflumilast, however, suffered from more adverse events (nausea, appetite reduction, diarrhea, weight loss, sleep disturbances, and headache) than those on placebo.³³

Antibiotics

GOLD guidelines do not recommend the use of antibiotics for patients with COPD, except to treat acute exacerbations.¹ However, recent studies suggest that routine or pulsed dosing of prophylactic antibiotics can reduce the number of exacerbations.^34-36 A 2013 review of 7 studies determined that continuous antibiotics, particularly macrolides, reduced the number of COPD exacerbations in patients with a mean age of 66 years (odds ratio [OR]=0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77).³⁷

Patients with limited mobility can benefit from non-exercise components of pulmonary rehabilitation.

A more recent trial randomized 92 patients with a history of ≥3 exacerbations in the previous year to receive either prophylactic azithromycin or placebo daily for 12 months. The treatment group experienced a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations (OR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; P=.001).³⁸ This benefit must be weighed against the potential development of antibiotic resistance and adverse effects, so careful patient selection is important.

Pulmonary rehabilitation has proven benefits

GOLD, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the European Respiratory Society all recommend pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD.^39-41 In addition to reducing morbidity and mortality rates—including a reduction in number of hospitalizations and length of stay and improved post-discharge recovery—pulmonary rehabilitation has been shown to have other physical and psychological benefits.⁴² Specific benefits include improved exercise capacity, greater arm strength and endurance, reduced perception of intensity of breathlessness, and improved overall health-related quality of life.

Key features of rehab programs

Important components of pulmonary rehabilitation include counseling on tobacco cessation, nutrition, education—including correct inhalation technique—and exercise training. There are few contraindications to participation, and patients can derive benefit from both its non-exercise components and upper extremity training regardless of their mobility level.

A 2006 Cochrane review concluded that an effective pulmonary rehabilitation program should be at least 4 weeks in duration,⁴³ and longer programs have been shown to produce greater benefits.⁴⁴ However, there is no agreement on an optimal time frame. Studies are inconclusive on other specific aspects of pulmonary rehab programs, as well, such as the number of sessions per week, number of hours per session, duration and intensity of exercise regimens, and staff-to-patient ratios.

An effective pulmonary rehabilitation program should be at least 4 weeks long.

Home-based exercise training may produce many of the same benefits as a formal pulmonary rehabilitation program. A systematic review found improved quality of life and exercise capacity associated with patient care that lacked formal pulmonary rehabilitation, with no differences between results from home-based training and hospital-based outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programs.⁴⁵

Given the lack of availability of formal rehab programs in many communities, homebased training for patients with COPD is important to consider.

Implications for practice

What is the takeaway from this evidence-based review? Overall, it is clear that, with the possible exception of the effect of once-daily dosing on adherence, there is little difference among the therapeutic agents within a particular class of medications—and that more is not necessarily better. Indeed, evidence suggests that higher doses of LABAs may reduce their effectiveness, rendering them no better than placebo. In addition, there is no significant difference in the rate of exacerbations in patients taking ICS/LABA combinations and those receiving IACs alone.

Determining the optimal treatment for a particular patient requires an assessment of comorbidities, including potential adverse drug effects.

Pulmonary rehabilitation should be recommended for all newly diagnosed patients, while appropriate drug therapies should be individualized based on the GOLD symptoms/risk evaluation categories (TABLE 3).³ While daily OCS and daily antibiotics have the potential to reduce exacerbation rates, for example, the risks of adverse effects and toxicities outweigh the benefits for patients whose condition is stable.

Determining the optimal treatment for a particular patient also requires an assessment of comorbidities, including potential adverse drug effects (TABLE 4).^{3,27-29,33,46-52} Selection of medication should be driven by patient and physician preference to optimize adherence and clinical outcomes, although cost and accessibility often play a significant role, as well.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nabila Ahmed-Sarwar, PharmD, BCPS, CDE, St. John Fisher College, Wegmans School of Pharmacy, 3690 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14618; nahmed-sarwar@sjfc.edu

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the following people for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript: Matthew Stryker, PharmD, Timothy Adler, PharmD, and Angela K. Nagel, PharmD, BCPS.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) carries a high disease burden. In 2012, it was the 4th leading cause of death worldwide.^1,2 In 2015, the World Health Organization updated its Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, classifying patients with COPD based on disease burden as determined by symptoms, airflow obstruction, and exacerbation history.³ These revisions, coupled with expanded therapeutic options within established classes of medications and new combination drugs to treat COPD (TABLE 1),^3-6 have led to questions about interclass differences and the best treatment regimen for particular patients.

Comparisons of various agents within a therapeutic class and their impact on lung function and rate of exacerbations address many of these concerns. In the text and tables that follow, we present the latest evidence highlighting differences in dosing, safety, and efficacy. We also include the updated GOLD classifications, evidence of efficacy for pulmonary rehabilitation, and practical implications of these findings for the optimal management of patients with COPD.

But first, a word about terminology.

Understanding COPD

COPD is a chronic lung disease characterized by progressive airflow limitation, usually measured by spirometry (TABLE 2),³ and chronic airway inflammation. Emphysema and chronic bronchitis are often used synonymously with COPD. In fact, there are important differences.

Individuals with chronic bronchitis do not necessarily have the airflow limitations found in those with COPD. And patients with COPD develop pathologic lung changes beyond the alveolar damage characteristic of emphysema, including airway fibrosis and inflammation, luminal plugging, and loss of elastic recoil.³

The medications included in this review aim to reduce both the morbidity and mortality associated with COPD. These drugs can also help relieve the symptoms of patients with chronic bronchitis and emphysema, but have limited effect on patient mortality.

Short- and long-acting beta₂-agonists

Bronchodilator therapy with beta₂-agonists improves forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) through relaxation of airway smooth muscle. Beta₂-agonists have proven to be safe and effective when used as needed or scheduled for patients with COPD.⁷

Inhaled short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABAs) improve FEV₁ and symptoms within 10 minutes, with effects lasting up to 4 to 6 hours; long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) have a variable onset, with effects lasting 12 to 24 hours.⁸ Inhaled levalbuterol, the last SABA to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval, has not proven to be superior to conventional bronchodilators in ambulatory patients with stable COPD.³ In clinical trials, however, the slightly longer half-life of the nebulized formulation of levalbuterol was found to reduce both the frequency of administration and the overall cost of therapy in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of COPD.^9,10

Recently approved LABAs

Clinical trials have studied the safety and efficacy of newer agents vs older LABAs in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Compared with theophylline, for example, formoterol 12 mcg inhaled every 12 hours for a 12-month period provided a clinically significant increase of >120 ml in FEV₁ (P=.026).¹¹ Higher doses of formoterol did not provide any additional improvement.

In a trial comparing indacaterol and tiotropium, an inhaled anticholinergic, both treatment groups had a clinically significant increase in FEV₁, but patients receiving indacaterol achieved an additional increase of 40 to 50 mL at 12 weeks.¹²

Exacerbation rates for all LABAs range from 22% to 44%.^5,12,13 In a study of patients receiving formoterol 12 mcg compared with 15-mcg and 25-mcg doses of arformoterol, those taking formoterol had a lower exacerbation rate than those on either strength of arformoterol (22% vs 32% and 31%, respectively).¹⁰ In various studies, doses greater than the FDA-approved regimens for indacaterol, arformoterol, and olodaterol did not result in a significant improvement in either FEV₁ or exacerbation rates compared with placebo.^5,12,14

Exacerbation rates for all long-acting beta₂-agonists range from 22% to 44%.

Studies that assessed the use of rescue medication as well as exacerbation rates in patients taking LABAs reported reductions in the use of the rescue drugs ranging from 0.46 to 1.32 actuations per day, but the findings had limited clinical relevance.^5,13 With the exception of indacaterol and olodaterol—both of which may be preferable because of their once-daily dosing regimen—no significant differences in safety and efficacy among LABAs have been found.^5,12,13

Long-acting inhaled anticholinergics

Inhaled anticholinergic agents (IACs) can be used in place of, or in conjunction with, LABAs to provide bronchodilation for up to 24 hours.³ The introduction of long-acting IACs dosed once or twice daily has the potential to improve medication adherence over traditional short-acting ipratropium, which requires multiple daily doses for symptom control. Over 4 years, tiotropium has been shown to increase time to first exacerbation by approximately 4 months. It did not, however, significantly reduce the number of exacerbations compared with placebo.¹⁵

Long-term use of tiotropium appears to have the potential to preserve lung function. In one trial, it slowed the rate of decline in FEV₁ by 5 mL per year, but this finding lacked clinical significance.¹³ In clinical trials of patients with moderate to severe COPD, however, once-daily tiotropium and umeclidinium provided clinically significant improvements in FEV₁ (>120 mL; P<.01), regardless of the dose administered.^6,16 In another trial, patients taking aclidinium 200 mcg or 400 mcg every 12 hours did not achieve a clinically significant improvement in FEV₁ compared with placebo.¹⁷

In patients with moderate to severe COPD, the combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol, a LABA, administered once daily resulted in a clinically significant improvement in FEV₁ (167 mL; P<.001) vs placebo—but was not significantly better than treatment with either agent alone.¹⁸

Long-acting inhaled anticholinergic agents—when used in combination with LABAS—have a positive effect on FEV₁, but their effect on exacerbation rates has not been established.

Few studies have evaluated time to exacerbation in patients receiving aclidinium or umeclidinium. In comparison to salmeterol, tiotropium reduced the time to first exacerbation by 42 days at one year (hazard ratio=0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.9; P<.001).¹⁹ The evidence suggests that when used in combination with LABAs, long-acting IACs have a positive impact on FEV₁, but their effect on exacerbation rates has not been established.

Combination therapy with steroids and LABAs

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and LABAs has been found to improve FEV₁ and symptoms in patients with moderate to severe COPD more than monotherapy with either drug class.^20,21 In fact, ICS alone have not been proven to slow the progression of the disease or to lower mortality rates in patients with COPD.²²

Fluticasone/salmeterol demonstrated a 25% reduction in exacerbation rates compared with placebo (P<.0001), a greater reduction than that of either drug alone.²⁰ A retrospective observational study comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol with budesonide/formoterol reported a similar reduction in exacerbation rates, but the number of patients requiring the addition of an IAC was 16% lower in the latter group.²³

The combination of fluticasone/vilanterol has the potential to improve adherence, given that it is dosed once daily, unlike other COPD combination drugs. Its clinical efficacy is comparable to that of fluticasone/salmeterol after 12 weeks of therapy, with similar improvements in FEV₁,²⁴ but fluticasone/vilanterol is associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.³

Chronic use of oral corticosteroids

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are clinically indicated in individuals whose symptoms continue despite optimal therapy with inhaled agents that have demonstrated efficacy. Such patients are often referred to as “steroid dependent.”

While OCS are prescribed for both their anti-inflammatory activity and their ability to slow the progression of COPD,^25,26 no well-designed studies have investigated their benefits for this patient population. One study concluded that patients who were slowly withdrawn from their OCS regimen had no more frequent exacerbations than those who maintained chronic usage. The withdrawal group did, however, lose weight.²⁷

GOLD guidelines do not recommend OCS for chronic management of COPD due to the risk of toxicity.³ The well-established adverse effects of chronic OCS include hyperglycemia, hypertension, osteoporosis, and myopathy.^28,29 A study of muscle function in 21 COPD patients receiving corticosteroids revealed decreases in quadriceps muscle strength and pulmonary function.³⁰ Daily use of OCS will likely result in additional therapies to control drug-induced conditions, as well—another antihypertensive secondary to fluid retention caused by chronic use of OCS in patients with high blood pressure, for example, or additional medication to control elevated blood glucose levels in patients with diabetes.

Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors

In one study, patients slowly withdrawn from oral corticosteroids had no more frequent exacerbations than those who maintained chronic usage.

The recommendation for roflumilast in patients with GOLD Class 2 to 4 symptoms remains unchanged since the introduction of this agent as a treatment option for COPD.³ Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as roflumilast reduce inflammation in the lungs and have no activity as a bronchodilator.^31,32

Roflumilast has been shown to improve FEV₁ in patients concurrently receiving a long-acting bronchodilator and to reduce exacerbations in steroid-dependent patients, a recent systematic review of 29 PDE-4 trials found.³³ Patients taking roflumilast, however, suffered from more adverse events (nausea, appetite reduction, diarrhea, weight loss, sleep disturbances, and headache) than those on placebo.³³

Antibiotics

GOLD guidelines do not recommend the use of antibiotics for patients with COPD, except to treat acute exacerbations.¹ However, recent studies suggest that routine or pulsed dosing of prophylactic antibiotics can reduce the number of exacerbations.^34-36 A 2013 review of 7 studies determined that continuous antibiotics, particularly macrolides, reduced the number of COPD exacerbations in patients with a mean age of 66 years (odds ratio [OR]=0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77).³⁷

Patients with limited mobility can benefit from non-exercise components of pulmonary rehabilitation.

A more recent trial randomized 92 patients with a history of ≥3 exacerbations in the previous year to receive either prophylactic azithromycin or placebo daily for 12 months. The treatment group experienced a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations (OR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; P=.001).³⁸ This benefit must be weighed against the potential development of antibiotic resistance and adverse effects, so careful patient selection is important.

Pulmonary rehabilitation has proven benefits

GOLD, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the European Respiratory Society all recommend pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD.^39-41 In addition to reducing morbidity and mortality rates—including a reduction in number of hospitalizations and length of stay and improved post-discharge recovery—pulmonary rehabilitation has been shown to have other physical and psychological benefits.⁴² Specific benefits include improved exercise capacity, greater arm strength and endurance, reduced perception of intensity of breathlessness, and improved overall health-related quality of life.

Key features of rehab programs

Important components of pulmonary rehabilitation include counseling on tobacco cessation, nutrition, education—including correct inhalation technique—and exercise training. There are few contraindications to participation, and patients can derive benefit from both its non-exercise components and upper extremity training regardless of their mobility level.

A 2006 Cochrane review concluded that an effective pulmonary rehabilitation program should be at least 4 weeks in duration,⁴³ and longer programs have been shown to produce greater benefits.⁴⁴ However, there is no agreement on an optimal time frame. Studies are inconclusive on other specific aspects of pulmonary rehab programs, as well, such as the number of sessions per week, number of hours per session, duration and intensity of exercise regimens, and staff-to-patient ratios.

An effective pulmonary rehabilitation program should be at least 4 weeks long.

Home-based exercise training may produce many of the same benefits as a formal pulmonary rehabilitation program. A systematic review found improved quality of life and exercise capacity associated with patient care that lacked formal pulmonary rehabilitation, with no differences between results from home-based training and hospital-based outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programs.⁴⁵

Given the lack of availability of formal rehab programs in many communities, homebased training for patients with COPD is important to consider.

Implications for practice

What is the takeaway from this evidence-based review? Overall, it is clear that, with the possible exception of the effect of once-daily dosing on adherence, there is little difference among the therapeutic agents within a particular class of medications—and that more is not necessarily better. Indeed, evidence suggests that higher doses of LABAs may reduce their effectiveness, rendering them no better than placebo. In addition, there is no significant difference in the rate of exacerbations in patients taking ICS/LABA combinations and those receiving IACs alone.

Determining the optimal treatment for a particular patient requires an assessment of comorbidities, including potential adverse drug effects.

Pulmonary rehabilitation should be recommended for all newly diagnosed patients, while appropriate drug therapies should be individualized based on the GOLD symptoms/risk evaluation categories (TABLE 3).³ While daily OCS and daily antibiotics have the potential to reduce exacerbation rates, for example, the risks of adverse effects and toxicities outweigh the benefits for patients whose condition is stable.

Determining the optimal treatment for a particular patient also requires an assessment of comorbidities, including potential adverse drug effects (TABLE 4).^{3,27-29,33,46-52} Selection of medication should be driven by patient and physician preference to optimize adherence and clinical outcomes, although cost and accessibility often play a significant role, as well.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nabila Ahmed-Sarwar, PharmD, BCPS, CDE, St. John Fisher College, Wegmans School of Pharmacy, 3690 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14618; nahmed-sarwar@sjfc.edu

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the following people for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript: Matthew Stryker, PharmD, Timothy Adler, PharmD, and Angela K. Nagel, PharmD, BCPS.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) carries a high disease burden. In 2012, it was the 4th leading cause of death worldwide.^1,2 In 2015, the World Health Organization updated its Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, classifying patients with COPD based on disease burden as determined by symptoms, airflow obstruction, and exacerbation history.³ These revisions, coupled with expanded therapeutic options within established classes of medications and new combination drugs to treat COPD (TABLE 1),^3-6 have led to questions about interclass differences and the best treatment regimen for particular patients.

Comparisons of various agents within a therapeutic class and their impact on lung function and rate of exacerbations address many of these concerns. In the text and tables that follow, we present the latest evidence highlighting differences in dosing, safety, and efficacy. We also include the updated GOLD classifications, evidence of efficacy for pulmonary rehabilitation, and practical implications of these findings for the optimal management of patients with COPD.

But first, a word about terminology.

Understanding COPD

COPD is a chronic lung disease characterized by progressive airflow limitation, usually measured by spirometry (TABLE 2),³ and chronic airway inflammation. Emphysema and chronic bronchitis are often used synonymously with COPD. In fact, there are important differences.

Individuals with chronic bronchitis do not necessarily have the airflow limitations found in those with COPD. And patients with COPD develop pathologic lung changes beyond the alveolar damage characteristic of emphysema, including airway fibrosis and inflammation, luminal plugging, and loss of elastic recoil.³

The medications included in this review aim to reduce both the morbidity and mortality associated with COPD. These drugs can also help relieve the symptoms of patients with chronic bronchitis and emphysema, but have limited effect on patient mortality.

Short- and long-acting beta₂-agonists

Bronchodilator therapy with beta₂-agonists improves forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) through relaxation of airway smooth muscle. Beta₂-agonists have proven to be safe and effective when used as needed or scheduled for patients with COPD.⁷

Inhaled short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABAs) improve FEV₁ and symptoms within 10 minutes, with effects lasting up to 4 to 6 hours; long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) have a variable onset, with effects lasting 12 to 24 hours.⁸ Inhaled levalbuterol, the last SABA to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval, has not proven to be superior to conventional bronchodilators in ambulatory patients with stable COPD.³ In clinical trials, however, the slightly longer half-life of the nebulized formulation of levalbuterol was found to reduce both the frequency of administration and the overall cost of therapy in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of COPD.^9,10

Recently approved LABAs

Clinical trials have studied the safety and efficacy of newer agents vs older LABAs in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Compared with theophylline, for example, formoterol 12 mcg inhaled every 12 hours for a 12-month period provided a clinically significant increase of >120 ml in FEV₁ (P=.026).¹¹ Higher doses of formoterol did not provide any additional improvement.

In a trial comparing indacaterol and tiotropium, an inhaled anticholinergic, both treatment groups had a clinically significant increase in FEV₁, but patients receiving indacaterol achieved an additional increase of 40 to 50 mL at 12 weeks.¹²

Exacerbation rates for all LABAs range from 22% to 44%.^5,12,13 In a study of patients receiving formoterol 12 mcg compared with 15-mcg and 25-mcg doses of arformoterol, those taking formoterol had a lower exacerbation rate than those on either strength of arformoterol (22% vs 32% and 31%, respectively).¹⁰ In various studies, doses greater than the FDA-approved regimens for indacaterol, arformoterol, and olodaterol did not result in a significant improvement in either FEV₁ or exacerbation rates compared with placebo.^5,12,14

Exacerbation rates for all long-acting beta₂-agonists range from 22% to 44%.

Studies that assessed the use of rescue medication as well as exacerbation rates in patients taking LABAs reported reductions in the use of the rescue drugs ranging from 0.46 to 1.32 actuations per day, but the findings had limited clinical relevance.^5,13 With the exception of indacaterol and olodaterol—both of which may be preferable because of their once-daily dosing regimen—no significant differences in safety and efficacy among LABAs have been found.^5,12,13

Long-acting inhaled anticholinergics

Inhaled anticholinergic agents (IACs) can be used in place of, or in conjunction with, LABAs to provide bronchodilation for up to 24 hours.³ The introduction of long-acting IACs dosed once or twice daily has the potential to improve medication adherence over traditional short-acting ipratropium, which requires multiple daily doses for symptom control. Over 4 years, tiotropium has been shown to increase time to first exacerbation by approximately 4 months. It did not, however, significantly reduce the number of exacerbations compared with placebo.¹⁵

Long-term use of tiotropium appears to have the potential to preserve lung function. In one trial, it slowed the rate of decline in FEV₁ by 5 mL per year, but this finding lacked clinical significance.¹³ In clinical trials of patients with moderate to severe COPD, however, once-daily tiotropium and umeclidinium provided clinically significant improvements in FEV₁ (>120 mL; P<.01), regardless of the dose administered.^6,16 In another trial, patients taking aclidinium 200 mcg or 400 mcg every 12 hours did not achieve a clinically significant improvement in FEV₁ compared with placebo.¹⁷

In patients with moderate to severe COPD, the combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol, a LABA, administered once daily resulted in a clinically significant improvement in FEV₁ (167 mL; P<.001) vs placebo—but was not significantly better than treatment with either agent alone.¹⁸

Long-acting inhaled anticholinergic agents—when used in combination with LABAS—have a positive effect on FEV₁, but their effect on exacerbation rates has not been established.

Few studies have evaluated time to exacerbation in patients receiving aclidinium or umeclidinium. In comparison to salmeterol, tiotropium reduced the time to first exacerbation by 42 days at one year (hazard ratio=0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.9; P<.001).¹⁹ The evidence suggests that when used in combination with LABAs, long-acting IACs have a positive impact on FEV₁, but their effect on exacerbation rates has not been established.

Combination therapy with steroids and LABAs

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and LABAs has been found to improve FEV₁ and symptoms in patients with moderate to severe COPD more than monotherapy with either drug class.^20,21 In fact, ICS alone have not been proven to slow the progression of the disease or to lower mortality rates in patients with COPD.²²

Fluticasone/salmeterol demonstrated a 25% reduction in exacerbation rates compared with placebo (P<.0001), a greater reduction than that of either drug alone.²⁰ A retrospective observational study comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol with budesonide/formoterol reported a similar reduction in exacerbation rates, but the number of patients requiring the addition of an IAC was 16% lower in the latter group.²³

The combination of fluticasone/vilanterol has the potential to improve adherence, given that it is dosed once daily, unlike other COPD combination drugs. Its clinical efficacy is comparable to that of fluticasone/salmeterol after 12 weeks of therapy, with similar improvements in FEV₁,²⁴ but fluticasone/vilanterol is associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.³

Chronic use of oral corticosteroids

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are clinically indicated in individuals whose symptoms continue despite optimal therapy with inhaled agents that have demonstrated efficacy. Such patients are often referred to as “steroid dependent.”

While OCS are prescribed for both their anti-inflammatory activity and their ability to slow the progression of COPD,^25,26 no well-designed studies have investigated their benefits for this patient population. One study concluded that patients who were slowly withdrawn from their OCS regimen had no more frequent exacerbations than those who maintained chronic usage. The withdrawal group did, however, lose weight.²⁷

GOLD guidelines do not recommend OCS for chronic management of COPD due to the risk of toxicity.³ The well-established adverse effects of chronic OCS include hyperglycemia, hypertension, osteoporosis, and myopathy.^28,29 A study of muscle function in 21 COPD patients receiving corticosteroids revealed decreases in quadriceps muscle strength and pulmonary function.³⁰ Daily use of OCS will likely result in additional therapies to control drug-induced conditions, as well—another antihypertensive secondary to fluid retention caused by chronic use of OCS in patients with high blood pressure, for example, or additional medication to control elevated blood glucose levels in patients with diabetes.

Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors

In one study, patients slowly withdrawn from oral corticosteroids had no more frequent exacerbations than those who maintained chronic usage.

The recommendation for roflumilast in patients with GOLD Class 2 to 4 symptoms remains unchanged since the introduction of this agent as a treatment option for COPD.³ Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as roflumilast reduce inflammation in the lungs and have no activity as a bronchodilator.^31,32

Roflumilast has been shown to improve FEV₁ in patients concurrently receiving a long-acting bronchodilator and to reduce exacerbations in steroid-dependent patients, a recent systematic review of 29 PDE-4 trials found.³³ Patients taking roflumilast, however, suffered from more adverse events (nausea, appetite reduction, diarrhea, weight loss, sleep disturbances, and headache) than those on placebo.³³

Antibiotics

GOLD guidelines do not recommend the use of antibiotics for patients with COPD, except to treat acute exacerbations.¹ However, recent studies suggest that routine or pulsed dosing of prophylactic antibiotics can reduce the number of exacerbations.^34-36 A 2013 review of 7 studies determined that continuous antibiotics, particularly macrolides, reduced the number of COPD exacerbations in patients with a mean age of 66 years (odds ratio [OR]=0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77).³⁷

Patients with limited mobility can benefit from non-exercise components of pulmonary rehabilitation.

A more recent trial randomized 92 patients with a history of ≥3 exacerbations in the previous year to receive either prophylactic azithromycin or placebo daily for 12 months. The treatment group experienced a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations (OR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; P=.001).³⁸ This benefit must be weighed against the potential development of antibiotic resistance and adverse effects, so careful patient selection is important.

Pulmonary rehabilitation has proven benefits

GOLD, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the European Respiratory Society all recommend pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD.^39-41 In addition to reducing morbidity and mortality rates—including a reduction in number of hospitalizations and length of stay and improved post-discharge recovery—pulmonary rehabilitation has been shown to have other physical and psychological benefits.⁴² Specific benefits include improved exercise capacity, greater arm strength and endurance, reduced perception of intensity of breathlessness, and improved overall health-related quality of life.

Key features of rehab programs

Important components of pulmonary rehabilitation include counseling on tobacco cessation, nutrition, education—including correct inhalation technique—and exercise training. There are few contraindications to participation, and patients can derive benefit from both its non-exercise components and upper extremity training regardless of their mobility level.

A 2006 Cochrane review concluded that an effective pulmonary rehabilitation program should be at least 4 weeks in duration,⁴³ and longer programs have been shown to produce greater benefits.⁴⁴ However, there is no agreement on an optimal time frame. Studies are inconclusive on other specific aspects of pulmonary rehab programs, as well, such as the number of sessions per week, number of hours per session, duration and intensity of exercise regimens, and staff-to-patient ratios.

An effective pulmonary rehabilitation program should be at least 4 weeks long.

Home-based exercise training may produce many of the same benefits as a formal pulmonary rehabilitation program. A systematic review found improved quality of life and exercise capacity associated with patient care that lacked formal pulmonary rehabilitation, with no differences between results from home-based training and hospital-based outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programs.⁴⁵

Given the lack of availability of formal rehab programs in many communities, homebased training for patients with COPD is important to consider.

Implications for practice

What is the takeaway from this evidence-based review? Overall, it is clear that, with the possible exception of the effect of once-daily dosing on adherence, there is little difference among the therapeutic agents within a particular class of medications—and that more is not necessarily better. Indeed, evidence suggests that higher doses of LABAs may reduce their effectiveness, rendering them no better than placebo. In addition, there is no significant difference in the rate of exacerbations in patients taking ICS/LABA combinations and those receiving IACs alone.

Determining the optimal treatment for a particular patient requires an assessment of comorbidities, including potential adverse drug effects.

Pulmonary rehabilitation should be recommended for all newly diagnosed patients, while appropriate drug therapies should be individualized based on the GOLD symptoms/risk evaluation categories (TABLE 3).³ While daily OCS and daily antibiotics have the potential to reduce exacerbation rates, for example, the risks of adverse effects and toxicities outweigh the benefits for patients whose condition is stable.

Determining the optimal treatment for a particular patient also requires an assessment of comorbidities, including potential adverse drug effects (TABLE 4).^{3,27-29,33,46-52} Selection of medication should be driven by patient and physician preference to optimize adherence and clinical outcomes, although cost and accessibility often play a significant role, as well.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nabila Ahmed-Sarwar, PharmD, BCPS, CDE, St. John Fisher College, Wegmans School of Pharmacy, 3690 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14618; nahmed-sarwar@sjfc.edu

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the following people for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript: Matthew Stryker, PharmD, Timothy Adler, PharmD, and Angela K. Nagel, PharmD, BCPS.

Illustrative case

A 75-year-old woman with hypertension and diabetes mellitus presents to the emergency department with shortness of breath, cough, and fever that she’s had for 4 days. On examination, her temperature is 38.2°C (100.7°F), heart rate is 110 beats/min, respiratory rate is 28 breaths/min, oxygen saturation is 91%, and rhonchi are heard in her right lower lung field. A chest x-ray reveals an infiltrate in her right lower lobe. The patient is admitted and started on intravenous (IV) antibiotics, IV fluids, acetaminophen for fever, and oxygen. Can anything else be done to speed her recovery?

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is responsible for more than one million hospitalizations annually in the United States, and is the 8th leading cause of death.^2,3 Treatment of CAP typically consists of antibiotics and supportive measures such as IV fluids and antipyretics. Because the disease process of CAP involves extensive inflammation, adjunct treatment with corticosteroids may be beneficial.

Multiple studies have shown that treatment with corticosteroids can help patients with severe CAP, but the potential benefit in patients with less severe CAP has been uncertain.^4,5 A Cochrane systematic review published in 2011 identified 6 small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the impact of corticosteroids on recovery from CAP.⁴ It suggested that corticosteroids may decrease time to recovery, but the studies that included patients with less severe CAP had a relatively high risk of bias.

Subsequently, a 2012 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs explored whether corticosteroids affected mortality in CAP; no benefit was observed in patients with less severe CAP.⁵ Most recently, a 2013 meta-analysis of 8 moderate-quality RCTs showed that corticosteroid use was associated with shorter hospital stays, but no change in mortality.⁶

The synthesis of small or moderate-quality studies suggests some potential benefit in treating less severe CAP with corticosteroids, but there has been a need for a large, definitive, high-quality RCT. This study investigated the impact of a short course of oral steroids on inpatients with less severe CAP.

STUDY SUMMARY: Prednisone hastens clinical stabilization, cuts length of hospital stay

In a multicenter, double-blind RCT, Blum et al¹ enrolled 785 patients with CAP admitted to 7 tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland from 2009 to 2014. Patients were eligible for the study if they were ≥18 years old, had a new infiltrate on chest x-ray, and had at least one additional sign or symptom of respiratory illness (eg, cough, dyspnea, fever, abnormal breathing signs or rales, or elevated or decreased white blood cell count). Patients were excluded if they had one of several possible contraindications to corticosteroids, cystic fibrosis, or active tuberculosis.

Patients were randomized to receive either prednisone 50 mg/d or placebo for 7 days. They were treated with antibiotics according to accepted local guidelines; most patients received either amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or ceftriaxone. Antibiotic treatment was adjusted according to susceptibility whenever a specific pathogen was identified. Nurses assessed all patients every 12 hours during hospitalization, and laboratory tests were obtained on hospital Days 1, 3, 5, and 7, and before discharge. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted on Day 30.

The median time to clinical stability was shorter for the prednisone group (3 days) than for the placebo group (4.4 days).

The primary outcome was length of time to clinical stability, which was defined as at least 24 hours of stable vital signs. Stable vital signs was a composite endpoint that required all of the following: temperature ≤37.8°C (≤100°F), heart rate ≤100 beats/min, spontaneous respiratory rate ≤24 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg (≥100 mm Hg for patients diagnosed with hypertension) without vasopressor support, mental status back to baseline, ability to take food by mouth, and adequate oxygenation on room air.

Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, pneumonia recurrence, hospital readmission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, all-cause mortality, and duration of antibiotic treatment. Researchers also explored whether the rates of complications from pneumonia or corticosteroid use differed between the prednisone and placebo groups.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the median time to clinical stability was shorter for the prednisone group at 3 days (interquartile range [IQR]=2.5-3.4) compared to the placebo group at 4.4 days (IQR=4-5; hazard ratio [HR]=1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.50; P<.0001). Median time to hospital discharge was also shorter for the prednisone group (6 days vs 7 days; HR=1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38; P=.012) as was duration of IV antibiotic treatment (4 days vs 5 days, difference=-0.89 days; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.20; P=.011).

There were no statistically significant differences in pneumonia recurrence, hospital readmission, ICU admission, or all-cause mortality. Patients treated with prednisone were more likely to experience hyperglycemia that required insulin treatment during admission (19% vs 11%; odds ratio=1.96; 95% CI, 1.31-2.93; P=.001).

WHAT'S NEW: This large, good-quality study reinforces previous evidence

This is the largest good-quality RCT to explore the impact of corticosteroid treatment on less severe CAP. Previous studies suggested that corticosteroids may decrease the duration of illness, but this is the first rigorous study to show a clear decrease in both time to clinical stability and length of hospital stay.

Also, this study used an easy-to-administer dose of oral steroids, instead of the several-day course of IV steroids used in most other studies. The findings from this study were incorporated into a 2015 meta-analysis that confirmed that corticosteroid treatment in patients with less severe CAP results in a shorter length of hospital stay and decreased time to clinical stability.⁷

CAVEATS: It's unclear whether steroids can benefit nonhospitalized patients

Because this study included hospitalized patients only, it’s not clear whether corticosteroids have a role in outpatient treatment of CAP. Additionally, while this was a large, well performed study, it did not have a sufficient number of patients to examine whether corticosteroids impact mortality among patients with CAP. Finally, the average length of hospital stay reported in this study was approximately 1.5 days longer than the typical length of stay in the United States.² The average length of stay has varied widely in studies examining corticosteroids in CAP, but good-quality studies have consistently shown a median reduction in length of stay of one day.⁷

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Steroids carry a risk of adverse events, including hyperglycemia

Treatment with prednisone increases the risk of corticosteroid-related adverse events, primarily hyperglycemia and the need for insulin. This may not be well received by patients or providers. However, these adverse effects appear to resolve quickly after treatment, and do not impact the overall time to clinical stability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Illustrative case

A 75-year-old woman with hypertension and diabetes mellitus presents to the emergency department with shortness of breath, cough, and fever that she’s had for 4 days. On examination, her temperature is 38.2°C (100.7°F), heart rate is 110 beats/min, respiratory rate is 28 breaths/min, oxygen saturation is 91%, and rhonchi are heard in her right lower lung field. A chest x-ray reveals an infiltrate in her right lower lobe. The patient is admitted and started on intravenous (IV) antibiotics, IV fluids, acetaminophen for fever, and oxygen. Can anything else be done to speed her recovery?

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is responsible for more than one million hospitalizations annually in the United States, and is the 8th leading cause of death.^2,3 Treatment of CAP typically consists of antibiotics and supportive measures such as IV fluids and antipyretics. Because the disease process of CAP involves extensive inflammation, adjunct treatment with corticosteroids may be beneficial.

Multiple studies have shown that treatment with corticosteroids can help patients with severe CAP, but the potential benefit in patients with less severe CAP has been uncertain.^4,5 A Cochrane systematic review published in 2011 identified 6 small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the impact of corticosteroids on recovery from CAP.⁴ It suggested that corticosteroids may decrease time to recovery, but the studies that included patients with less severe CAP had a relatively high risk of bias.

Subsequently, a 2012 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs explored whether corticosteroids affected mortality in CAP; no benefit was observed in patients with less severe CAP.⁵ Most recently, a 2013 meta-analysis of 8 moderate-quality RCTs showed that corticosteroid use was associated with shorter hospital stays, but no change in mortality.⁶

The synthesis of small or moderate-quality studies suggests some potential benefit in treating less severe CAP with corticosteroids, but there has been a need for a large, definitive, high-quality RCT. This study investigated the impact of a short course of oral steroids on inpatients with less severe CAP.

STUDY SUMMARY: Prednisone hastens clinical stabilization, cuts length of hospital stay

In a multicenter, double-blind RCT, Blum et al¹ enrolled 785 patients with CAP admitted to 7 tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland from 2009 to 2014. Patients were eligible for the study if they were ≥18 years old, had a new infiltrate on chest x-ray, and had at least one additional sign or symptom of respiratory illness (eg, cough, dyspnea, fever, abnormal breathing signs or rales, or elevated or decreased white blood cell count). Patients were excluded if they had one of several possible contraindications to corticosteroids, cystic fibrosis, or active tuberculosis.

Patients were randomized to receive either prednisone 50 mg/d or placebo for 7 days. They were treated with antibiotics according to accepted local guidelines; most patients received either amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or ceftriaxone. Antibiotic treatment was adjusted according to susceptibility whenever a specific pathogen was identified. Nurses assessed all patients every 12 hours during hospitalization, and laboratory tests were obtained on hospital Days 1, 3, 5, and 7, and before discharge. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted on Day 30.

The median time to clinical stability was shorter for the prednisone group (3 days) than for the placebo group (4.4 days).

The primary outcome was length of time to clinical stability, which was defined as at least 24 hours of stable vital signs. Stable vital signs was a composite endpoint that required all of the following: temperature ≤37.8°C (≤100°F), heart rate ≤100 beats/min, spontaneous respiratory rate ≤24 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg (≥100 mm Hg for patients diagnosed with hypertension) without vasopressor support, mental status back to baseline, ability to take food by mouth, and adequate oxygenation on room air.

Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, pneumonia recurrence, hospital readmission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, all-cause mortality, and duration of antibiotic treatment. Researchers also explored whether the rates of complications from pneumonia or corticosteroid use differed between the prednisone and placebo groups.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the median time to clinical stability was shorter for the prednisone group at 3 days (interquartile range [IQR]=2.5-3.4) compared to the placebo group at 4.4 days (IQR=4-5; hazard ratio [HR]=1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.50; P<.0001). Median time to hospital discharge was also shorter for the prednisone group (6 days vs 7 days; HR=1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38; P=.012) as was duration of IV antibiotic treatment (4 days vs 5 days, difference=-0.89 days; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.20; P=.011).

There were no statistically significant differences in pneumonia recurrence, hospital readmission, ICU admission, or all-cause mortality. Patients treated with prednisone were more likely to experience hyperglycemia that required insulin treatment during admission (19% vs 11%; odds ratio=1.96; 95% CI, 1.31-2.93; P=.001).

WHAT'S NEW: This large, good-quality study reinforces previous evidence

This is the largest good-quality RCT to explore the impact of corticosteroid treatment on less severe CAP. Previous studies suggested that corticosteroids may decrease the duration of illness, but this is the first rigorous study to show a clear decrease in both time to clinical stability and length of hospital stay.

Also, this study used an easy-to-administer dose of oral steroids, instead of the several-day course of IV steroids used in most other studies. The findings from this study were incorporated into a 2015 meta-analysis that confirmed that corticosteroid treatment in patients with less severe CAP results in a shorter length of hospital stay and decreased time to clinical stability.⁷

CAVEATS: It's unclear whether steroids can benefit nonhospitalized patients

Because this study included hospitalized patients only, it’s not clear whether corticosteroids have a role in outpatient treatment of CAP. Additionally, while this was a large, well performed study, it did not have a sufficient number of patients to examine whether corticosteroids impact mortality among patients with CAP. Finally, the average length of hospital stay reported in this study was approximately 1.5 days longer than the typical length of stay in the United States.² The average length of stay has varied widely in studies examining corticosteroids in CAP, but good-quality studies have consistently shown a median reduction in length of stay of one day.⁷

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Steroids carry a risk of adverse events, including hyperglycemia

Treatment with prednisone increases the risk of corticosteroid-related adverse events, primarily hyperglycemia and the need for insulin. This may not be well received by patients or providers. However, these adverse effects appear to resolve quickly after treatment, and do not impact the overall time to clinical stability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Illustrative case

A 75-year-old woman with hypertension and diabetes mellitus presents to the emergency department with shortness of breath, cough, and fever that she’s had for 4 days. On examination, her temperature is 38.2°C (100.7°F), heart rate is 110 beats/min, respiratory rate is 28 breaths/min, oxygen saturation is 91%, and rhonchi are heard in her right lower lung field. A chest x-ray reveals an infiltrate in her right lower lobe. The patient is admitted and started on intravenous (IV) antibiotics, IV fluids, acetaminophen for fever, and oxygen. Can anything else be done to speed her recovery?

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is responsible for more than one million hospitalizations annually in the United States, and is the 8th leading cause of death.^2,3 Treatment of CAP typically consists of antibiotics and supportive measures such as IV fluids and antipyretics. Because the disease process of CAP involves extensive inflammation, adjunct treatment with corticosteroids may be beneficial.

Multiple studies have shown that treatment with corticosteroids can help patients with severe CAP, but the potential benefit in patients with less severe CAP has been uncertain.^4,5 A Cochrane systematic review published in 2011 identified 6 small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the impact of corticosteroids on recovery from CAP.⁴ It suggested that corticosteroids may decrease time to recovery, but the studies that included patients with less severe CAP had a relatively high risk of bias.

Subsequently, a 2012 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs explored whether corticosteroids affected mortality in CAP; no benefit was observed in patients with less severe CAP.⁵ Most recently, a 2013 meta-analysis of 8 moderate-quality RCTs showed that corticosteroid use was associated with shorter hospital stays, but no change in mortality.⁶

The synthesis of small or moderate-quality studies suggests some potential benefit in treating less severe CAP with corticosteroids, but there has been a need for a large, definitive, high-quality RCT. This study investigated the impact of a short course of oral steroids on inpatients with less severe CAP.

STUDY SUMMARY: Prednisone hastens clinical stabilization, cuts length of hospital stay

In a multicenter, double-blind RCT, Blum et al¹ enrolled 785 patients with CAP admitted to 7 tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland from 2009 to 2014. Patients were eligible for the study if they were ≥18 years old, had a new infiltrate on chest x-ray, and had at least one additional sign or symptom of respiratory illness (eg, cough, dyspnea, fever, abnormal breathing signs or rales, or elevated or decreased white blood cell count). Patients were excluded if they had one of several possible contraindications to corticosteroids, cystic fibrosis, or active tuberculosis.

Patients were randomized to receive either prednisone 50 mg/d or placebo for 7 days. They were treated with antibiotics according to accepted local guidelines; most patients received either amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or ceftriaxone. Antibiotic treatment was adjusted according to susceptibility whenever a specific pathogen was identified. Nurses assessed all patients every 12 hours during hospitalization, and laboratory tests were obtained on hospital Days 1, 3, 5, and 7, and before discharge. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted on Day 30.

The median time to clinical stability was shorter for the prednisone group (3 days) than for the placebo group (4.4 days).

The primary outcome was length of time to clinical stability, which was defined as at least 24 hours of stable vital signs. Stable vital signs was a composite endpoint that required all of the following: temperature ≤37.8°C (≤100°F), heart rate ≤100 beats/min, spontaneous respiratory rate ≤24 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg (≥100 mm Hg for patients diagnosed with hypertension) without vasopressor support, mental status back to baseline, ability to take food by mouth, and adequate oxygenation on room air.

Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, pneumonia recurrence, hospital readmission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, all-cause mortality, and duration of antibiotic treatment. Researchers also explored whether the rates of complications from pneumonia or corticosteroid use differed between the prednisone and placebo groups.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the median time to clinical stability was shorter for the prednisone group at 3 days (interquartile range [IQR]=2.5-3.4) compared to the placebo group at 4.4 days (IQR=4-5; hazard ratio [HR]=1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.50; P<.0001). Median time to hospital discharge was also shorter for the prednisone group (6 days vs 7 days; HR=1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38; P=.012) as was duration of IV antibiotic treatment (4 days vs 5 days, difference=-0.89 days; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.20; P=.011).

There were no statistically significant differences in pneumonia recurrence, hospital readmission, ICU admission, or all-cause mortality. Patients treated with prednisone were more likely to experience hyperglycemia that required insulin treatment during admission (19% vs 11%; odds ratio=1.96; 95% CI, 1.31-2.93; P=.001).

WHAT'S NEW: This large, good-quality study reinforces previous evidence

This is the largest good-quality RCT to explore the impact of corticosteroid treatment on less severe CAP. Previous studies suggested that corticosteroids may decrease the duration of illness, but this is the first rigorous study to show a clear decrease in both time to clinical stability and length of hospital stay.

Also, this study used an easy-to-administer dose of oral steroids, instead of the several-day course of IV steroids used in most other studies. The findings from this study were incorporated into a 2015 meta-analysis that confirmed that corticosteroid treatment in patients with less severe CAP results in a shorter length of hospital stay and decreased time to clinical stability.⁷

CAVEATS: It's unclear whether steroids can benefit nonhospitalized patients

Because this study included hospitalized patients only, it’s not clear whether corticosteroids have a role in outpatient treatment of CAP. Additionally, while this was a large, well performed study, it did not have a sufficient number of patients to examine whether corticosteroids impact mortality among patients with CAP. Finally, the average length of hospital stay reported in this study was approximately 1.5 days longer than the typical length of stay in the United States.² The average length of stay has varied widely in studies examining corticosteroids in CAP, but good-quality studies have consistently shown a median reduction in length of stay of one day.⁷

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Steroids carry a risk of adverse events, including hyperglycemia

Treatment with prednisone increases the risk of corticosteroid-related adverse events, primarily hyperglycemia and the need for insulin. This may not be well received by patients or providers. However, these adverse effects appear to resolve quickly after treatment, and do not impact the overall time to clinical stability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A large systematic review evaluated the relationship between dietary soy intake and risk of a primary breast cancer diagnosis. It included 7 prospective cohort studies, which comprised the best quality evidence available (numerous other reviewed studies were of lower quality). The review found no significant association between dietary soy intake and primary breast cancer (TABLE^1-6).

Investigators either surveyed women for intake of soy isoflavones or soy foods or products (tofu, soybeans, lentils, miso) or measured urinary or plasma levels of soy isoflavones. They adjusted for age, alcohol use, smoking status, body mass index, caloric intake, and hormone replacement therapy, then followed subjects for 7 to 23 years, comparing the risk of breast cancer for the lowest and highest levels of soy intake. 

Six of the prospective cohort studies found no association between soy intake and breast cancer risk; one study, comprising 4% of the total population, found a lower risk with higher soy intake (effect size=0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.73; an effect size of 0.2 is considered small, 0.6 medium, and 1.2 large). The authors didn’t do a meta-analysis of the prospective cohort studies.

Other cohort studies yield similar findings

Four other large systematic reviews evaluating soy intake and breast cancer risk incorporated a total of 6 individual prospective cohort studies that weren’t included in the previously described review (again, these studies comprised the best quality evidence within the reviews). The 6 studies found no association between soy intake and breast cancer risk.

In 2 of the studies, investigators surveyed postmenopausal women and followed them for 4 to 8 years.² Investigators in another study adjusted for age, family and gynecologic history, hormone and medication use, exercise, and other factors.³ In 2 other studies, investigators evaluated population subsets that consumed the most vs the fewest servings per week or kilograms per year of soy foods.⁴ The sixth study compared low with high intake of soy foods and miso.⁵

Soy intake after breast cancer diagnosis reduces recurrence risk in most studies

Most prospective cohort studies evaluating the association between dietary soy intake after breast cancer diagnosis found an overall 21% decrease in recurrence with high soy intake and a 15% reduction in mortality (TABLE^1-6).

Investigators in a meta-analysis of 5 studies that followed women for 4 to 7 years after first breast cancer diagnosis found that higher soy intake was associated with lower mortality but not less recurrence in women who were estrogen receptor positive. Both recurrence and mortality were decreased in estrogen receptor negative women.⁶

The study also found lower recurrence and mortality in premenopausal women with higher soy intake (recurrence hazard ratio [HR]=0.91; 95% CI, 0.72-1.14; mortality HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88). In postmenopausal women, higher intake was likewise associated with improvement of both outcomes (recurrence HR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.80; mortality HR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91).

An earlier meta-analysis of 4 prospective cohort studies, 2 of which were not included above, also found reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence in groups with high vs low soy isoflavone intake (HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99).⁷ Women taking tamoxifen showed no difference in mortality or recurrence risk associated with soy intake.

An additional small prospective cohort study (n=256) found similar reductions in recurrence and mortality associated with higher consumption of soy protein.⁸

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A large systematic review evaluated the relationship between dietary soy intake and risk of a primary breast cancer diagnosis. It included 7 prospective cohort studies, which comprised the best quality evidence available (numerous other reviewed studies were of lower quality). The review found no significant association between dietary soy intake and primary breast cancer (TABLE^1-6).

Investigators either surveyed women for intake of soy isoflavones or soy foods or products (tofu, soybeans, lentils, miso) or measured urinary or plasma levels of soy isoflavones. They adjusted for age, alcohol use, smoking status, body mass index, caloric intake, and hormone replacement therapy, then followed subjects for 7 to 23 years, comparing the risk of breast cancer for the lowest and highest levels of soy intake. 

Six of the prospective cohort studies found no association between soy intake and breast cancer risk; one study, comprising 4% of the total population, found a lower risk with higher soy intake (effect size=0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.73; an effect size of 0.2 is considered small, 0.6 medium, and 1.2 large). The authors didn’t do a meta-analysis of the prospective cohort studies.

Other cohort studies yield similar findings

Four other large systematic reviews evaluating soy intake and breast cancer risk incorporated a total of 6 individual prospective cohort studies that weren’t included in the previously described review (again, these studies comprised the best quality evidence within the reviews). The 6 studies found no association between soy intake and breast cancer risk.

In 2 of the studies, investigators surveyed postmenopausal women and followed them for 4 to 8 years.² Investigators in another study adjusted for age, family and gynecologic history, hormone and medication use, exercise, and other factors.³ In 2 other studies, investigators evaluated population subsets that consumed the most vs the fewest servings per week or kilograms per year of soy foods.⁴ The sixth study compared low with high intake of soy foods and miso.⁵

Soy intake after breast cancer diagnosis reduces recurrence risk in most studies

Most prospective cohort studies evaluating the association between dietary soy intake after breast cancer diagnosis found an overall 21% decrease in recurrence with high soy intake and a 15% reduction in mortality (TABLE^1-6).

Investigators in a meta-analysis of 5 studies that followed women for 4 to 7 years after first breast cancer diagnosis found that higher soy intake was associated with lower mortality but not less recurrence in women who were estrogen receptor positive. Both recurrence and mortality were decreased in estrogen receptor negative women.⁶

The study also found lower recurrence and mortality in premenopausal women with higher soy intake (recurrence hazard ratio [HR]=0.91; 95% CI, 0.72-1.14; mortality HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88). In postmenopausal women, higher intake was likewise associated with improvement of both outcomes (recurrence HR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.80; mortality HR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91).

An earlier meta-analysis of 4 prospective cohort studies, 2 of which were not included above, also found reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence in groups with high vs low soy isoflavone intake (HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99).⁷ Women taking tamoxifen showed no difference in mortality or recurrence risk associated with soy intake.

An additional small prospective cohort study (n=256) found similar reductions in recurrence and mortality associated with higher consumption of soy protein.⁸

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A large systematic review evaluated the relationship between dietary soy intake and risk of a primary breast cancer diagnosis. It included 7 prospective cohort studies, which comprised the best quality evidence available (numerous other reviewed studies were of lower quality). The review found no significant association between dietary soy intake and primary breast cancer (TABLE^1-6).

Investigators either surveyed women for intake of soy isoflavones or soy foods or products (tofu, soybeans, lentils, miso) or measured urinary or plasma levels of soy isoflavones. They adjusted for age, alcohol use, smoking status, body mass index, caloric intake, and hormone replacement therapy, then followed subjects for 7 to 23 years, comparing the risk of breast cancer for the lowest and highest levels of soy intake. 

Six of the prospective cohort studies found no association between soy intake and breast cancer risk; one study, comprising 4% of the total population, found a lower risk with higher soy intake (effect size=0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.73; an effect size of 0.2 is considered small, 0.6 medium, and 1.2 large). The authors didn’t do a meta-analysis of the prospective cohort studies.

Other cohort studies yield similar findings

Four other large systematic reviews evaluating soy intake and breast cancer risk incorporated a total of 6 individual prospective cohort studies that weren’t included in the previously described review (again, these studies comprised the best quality evidence within the reviews). The 6 studies found no association between soy intake and breast cancer risk.

In 2 of the studies, investigators surveyed postmenopausal women and followed them for 4 to 8 years.² Investigators in another study adjusted for age, family and gynecologic history, hormone and medication use, exercise, and other factors.³ In 2 other studies, investigators evaluated population subsets that consumed the most vs the fewest servings per week or kilograms per year of soy foods.⁴ The sixth study compared low with high intake of soy foods and miso.⁵

Soy intake after breast cancer diagnosis reduces recurrence risk in most studies

Most prospective cohort studies evaluating the association between dietary soy intake after breast cancer diagnosis found an overall 21% decrease in recurrence with high soy intake and a 15% reduction in mortality (TABLE^1-6).

Investigators in a meta-analysis of 5 studies that followed women for 4 to 7 years after first breast cancer diagnosis found that higher soy intake was associated with lower mortality but not less recurrence in women who were estrogen receptor positive. Both recurrence and mortality were decreased in estrogen receptor negative women.⁶

The study also found lower recurrence and mortality in premenopausal women with higher soy intake (recurrence hazard ratio [HR]=0.91; 95% CI, 0.72-1.14; mortality HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88). In postmenopausal women, higher intake was likewise associated with improvement of both outcomes (recurrence HR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.80; mortality HR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91).

An earlier meta-analysis of 4 prospective cohort studies, 2 of which were not included above, also found reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence in groups with high vs low soy isoflavone intake (HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99).⁷ Women taking tamoxifen showed no difference in mortality or recurrence risk associated with soy intake.

An additional small prospective cohort study (n=256) found similar reductions in recurrence and mortality associated with higher consumption of soy protein.⁸